§ The result
Plum leads CoderPad by 12 points.
Both filed under Assessment, Plum and CoderPad come out 54 and 42 under rubric v1.0, 12 points in favour of Plum. The 7 criteria split 3 to 2 in favour of Plum, with 2 level: Plum is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and CoderPad on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CoderPad 20, Plum 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 79% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
Vendor profile
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
CoderPad and Plum are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2013 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Plum 83
11.3 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Plum 58
2.6 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Plum 36
1.0 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Plum 52
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Plum 63
0.4 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -12.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 83 | -63 | -11.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 54 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 36 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 63 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 54 (F) | -12 | -12.8 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | CoderPad | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next